Making a fan expansion (or at least calling your bunch of fan cards a fan expansion) seems the thing to do these days for people who like to make fan cards. So here's my fan expansion, in its current condition. Flavor themes: Restoration and Inheritance. This is to come in the story timeline next after Dark Ages. Mechanic themes: durations, ruins, and mixed-type victory cards*. At the bottom of the post, I included a couple of other people's fan cards which I like and would fit the themes. (*Including the Inheritance cards linked at the bottom of the post.)

Test rating: 7 means the card is plenty tested and considered finished (none are there yet), 0 means it hasn't been tested at all (or only slightly as a previous version).

This version test rating 2/7. Originally based on Aidan Millow's Archaeologist from the Dark Ages contest. It's had major changes since the previous version.

Rules for the Preserve type: If a card with the Preserve type is in the kingdom, include both the ruins and special ruins in the supply. Whenever you would gain a ruins (except by buying one), you may discard a card to gain a special ruins instead. The ruins and special ruins count as being from the same pile. Whenever a special ruins is gained, trash a normal ruins from the supply. Include 6 special ruins per player. (The special ruins are here.)

Mysterious DoorCost 2 - ActionThe player to your left discards the bottom card of his deck. If it's... a victory card, +2 Cards; a treasure card, +; an action card, play this as the revealed action card -it is that card until it leaves play.

Test rating 3/7. The attack was (usually) extremely weak, and the exciting part is getting to play it as more expensive action cards, so I removed the attack. It's simpler now.

Salvage YardCost $1 - EventDiscard any number of cards from your hand. Gain a card from the trash costing up to $2 per card you discarded.

Test rating 2/7. Haven't found a suitable image for it. (May need a new name to fit with an image, maybe 'Recover'.)

Building Materials rule: Mortar Repair has no randomizer, but is added as an 11th kingdom pile whenever Foundation or Building Blocks are in the kingdom. (These have been posted in another thread.)

Quote

Mortar RepairCost 3 - Action/MaterialReveal your top 2 deck cards. You may discard one. You may trash one. Put any remaining back on your deck. If you trashed one, gain a card costing up to $3. Otherwise, +1 Action, +$1.-When this card is trashed, +$1 on your turn.

Test rating 3/7. It's been tested a few times since the other thread, and I like it. (The previous version seemed slightly weak so I made it reveal two cards.)ThetaSigma12 has begun redoing my card images with better photoshop foo, but I'm including both versions on this one because the wording tweak he made makes a difference.

Quote

Building BlocksCost $2 - Treasure/Reaction/MaterialWorth $1. When you play this, reveal the top card of your deck and discard it or put it back. -When you reveal this from your deck, you may put this into your hand. If you do, continue revealing cards as if you hadn't revealed this card.

Generous BenefactorCost 3 - Action - Duration+1 action, +$1. Next turn: +$2, +1 Buy. -While this is in play, each other player gets +$1 after they finish playing treasures in their buy phase if they have no gold, platnum, or attack cards in play.

Test rating 2/7. Working well.

Quote

DrawbridgeCost 3 - Action - Duration+2 cards. Next turn: You may trash a card from your hand. If you do, +1 card.-While this is in play, when another player plays an attack card, its player may discard a card. If they don't, you are unaffected by the attack.

Test rating 3/7. It seemed very strong for $3 as it was, so I made the cost for the attacker smaller for the attack to get through.

Test rating 4/7. I decided I like the $4 cost version better so I changed it back. It's powerful often, but sometimes it can be worse than a necropolis. Still, it was too strong for $4, so I thought of an on-buy drawback. The part in parenthesis is included in the rules for Preserve cards. It's just a reminder here.

Quote

TrailblazerCost 3 - Action+1 card, +1 action.During your action phase with this in your hand, you may discard a card. If you do, play this without using an action.-When you gain this, reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put any number of revealed Victory cards and Curses into your hand. Put the other cards back in any order.

Test rating 4/7. (Name and on-gain effect shamelessly stolen from a card by Just a Rube)

Quote

CollectablesCost 4 - Action - Duration+1 Card, +1 Action. Next turn: Reveal the top card of your deck, if it costs $5 or more, put it into your hand. -While this is in play, all cards in your hand, deck, or discard pile cost $1 more.

Test rating 3/7.

Quote

MinerCost 4 - Action+$1. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put one revealed treasure into your hand. Discard one other revealed card. Put the rest back in any order.

Test rating 4/7. Seems to work well.

Quote

Vandal$5 - Action - Attack - Looter+2 cards. Each other player may reveal a victory card from his hand and put it onto his deck. If he doesn't, he gains a ruins. You may reveal a victory card from your hand and put it on your deck. If you do, +$2.

Test rating 4/7. Fun fact: This picture of a graffiti Texas A&M logo was taken in Rome, Italy.

Quote

Fountain GargoyleCost $5 - Action / Attack / Looter / Duration / Victory+1 Action.This turn and next: +$1.Worth 1VP-Until your next turn, when another player gains a victory card, he reveals and puts a pure victory card or a ruins from his discard pile on top of his deck.

Test rating 2/7. I know certain people won't like the looks of this version, but we've played with it and we like it. Fun is what matters not dividing lines or minor details like that. (Now it has five types, But then I wouldn't actually print it or mock it up with the looter type on it.)

Quote

Kingdom RestorationCost 5 - Action+1 Action. You may discard the top card of your deck. Then look through your discard pile and put up to two cards from it on top of your deck. +1 Card.-During your buy phase, you may pay $1 to return a card from the trash pile to the supply.

Test rating 3/7.

Quote

PioneerCost 5 - Action - Duration - Preserve+3 Cards, +1 Buy.-While this is in play, when you buy an Action card, you may set it aside. If you do, play it at the start of your next turn, then trash it.

Test rating 3/7. I changed it to use the wording Lastfootnote suggested, gave it a name, and tested it in a couple games. I got the idea for this card in a dream.

Quote

Ancestral CryptCost 5 - Action - Victory+1 Card. Trash up to two cards from your hand. For each card you trash that costs more than $0, take a coin token. -Worth 1 VP

Test rating 3/7.

Quote

Royal HeirloomCost 5 - Action - DurationReveal deck cards until you reveal an action card, put the action card in your hand and discard the rest. Then choose an action card from your hand. Play it now and play it again at the start of your next turn.

Test rating 4/7.

Almost but not quite yet junked cards:

Quote

Iron FurnaceCost 2 - ActionReveal a card from your hand. If it's an action, play it. If it's a ruins, play it again. If it's a treasure, +$2. If it's a victory card, +2 cards. In any case, trash the revealed card.

Test rating 3/7. (will probably cut because of the similarity to Sacrifice.)

Quote

Joint UpgradeCost 4 - Action+2 Cards. Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more. Each other player may trash a card and discard a card from their hand. If they do, they gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the card they trashed.

To be replaced...

Quote

PatricianCost 5 - Action - Attack+2 Actions. Each player (including you) reveals cards from their deck until they reveal an action or treasure card costing at least $3. Put yours in your hand and discard the rest; each other player discards theirs and shuffles the other revealed cards back in their deck.

Test rating 2/7. (Originally based on Confessor by RTT.) Thinking of bringing this one back to the main list and just have the attack happen "If this is the first Patrician you played this turn". An attacking village. The problem is that it can make people shuffle a lot, but if you do the attack without shuffling it makes multiples of the card too nasty. (The name is of course a reference to the ruler of Ankh Morpork. I love Discworld books. ...and now I'll have to change the name )

<I removed the list of cards that have been junked from the set.>

Other people's cards that I like and would fit with the Resurgence expansion:(Actually since I get a lot of my ideas from other people's cards, some of the above cards could go in this section. It's the timeless 'how much do I have to change someone else's idea before I call it my own work?' question, but in the matter of fan-made Dominion cards I don't think it matters that much...)

Garderobe by jamespotter (cost 2), (Renamed 'Excavation' for when I use it.)

I think most of these are too weak. In general, I think an expansion should focus on some new mechanic, or at least on a mechanic that hasn't been the focus of an expansion before.

Quote

Iron FurnaceCost 2 - ActionReveal a card from your hand. If it's an action, play it. If it's a treasure, +$1. If it's a victory card, +1 card. In any case, trash the revealed card.

This is super-weak, even when trashing bad cards. It's nice that it's flexible, but I don't think that saves it. I suggest you double all the bonuses, like so

Quote

Iron FurnaceTypes: ActionCost: $2Reveal a card from your hand. If it's an Action, play it twice. If it's a Treasure, +$2. If it's a Victory card, +2 Cards. Trash the revealed card.

Quote

PotluckCost 3 - ActionReveal the card that is 3rd from the top of your deck. If it's an action card: play it and +1 action. If it's a treasure card, put it into your hand and +$1. Otherwise, discard it and +1 card.

"3rd from the top" is awkward. I suggest using the bottom card of your deck instead.

Like Iron Furnace, this is too weak. When a card is unreliable, the different options should each be powerful relative to its cost. But this is just a Village, [+1 Card; +$1], and [sift a card; +1 Card], respectively. Super weak! Maybe the Treasure option is fine, but the other two definitely need a buff. Probably all three.

Quote

PrisonCost 3 - Action - Reaction+2 cards. Set aside a card from your hand. Put it into your hand next turn.-When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, the other player sets aside the attack card after it resolves and discards it after his next shuffle.

I'm not sure the reaction is strong or interesting enough to be worth doing. But any stronger and you definitely run into the Reaction-that-hurts-the-attacker ratio issue. Technically you get that here too, but it might be weak enough not to matter.

Quote

FoundationCost 3 - Action - Reaction+1 card, +1 action.-This may take the place of any card costing up to $4 any time you trash or discard a card. When this card is discarded from your hand besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

I think this is too confusing to be worth doing. That's just my opinion.

Quote

Marketting AgentCost 3 - Action - Duration+1 Card. Put one of your Agent tokens on a supply pile. Next turn: +$1. -While this is in play, any card with your agent token costs $1 more except during your buy phase when it costs $1 less. When this leaves play, remove one of your tokens. Setup: Each player has unique Agent tokens.

Terminal +1 Card just seems really bad. You can't use it for a draw engine since it doesn't increase your hand size, yet you still have the issue of maybe drawing stuff dead. I would get rid of it and just change the next-turn effect to +$2 or something.

I think the whole concept isn't worth having 4 to 6 sets of uniquely colored tokens and then calculating each card's cost based on all the tokens. "OK, I play Remodel and trash this Estate, which is worth $3 because one of my red tokens is on Estate. What can I gain? Well, there are blue and green tokens on Caravan. Whose tokens are these? Do you have a Marketting Agent in play? If not, these tokens don't count. Only one of you does, but you actually have two Marketting Agents in play, so your token counts double? Guess I can't gain a Caravan."

Quote

CollectablesCost 3 - Action - Duration+1 Action.Start of next turn: You may reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. If you do, gain a copy of it. -While this is in play, all cards in your hand, deck, or discard pile cost $1 more.

The top half is incredibly weak, especially considering you can really only gain cards costing up to $2 (or less), because the card you reveal from your hand costs $1 more than it otherwise would. I predict that the bottom half will generate a lot of rules questions. If fact, I don't even think it does what you want it to do. When you Procession a Band of Misfits, you play it twice, trash it (now it's in the trash and worth $5 again), then gain an Action card costing $6. Likewise, if you trash an Estate with Collectables, it's in the trash by the time you gain a card, so it costs $2 again.

PotluckCost 3 - ActionReveal the card that is 3rd from the top of your deck. If it's an action card: play it and +1 action. If it's a treasure card, put it into your hand and +$1. Otherwise, discard it and +1 card.

"3rd from the top" is awkward. I suggest using the bottom card of your deck instead.

Like Iron Furnace, this is too weak. When a card is unreliable, the different options should each be powerful relative to its cost. But this is just a Village, [+1 Card; +$1], and [sift a card; +1 Card], respectively. Super weak! Maybe the Treasure option is fine, but the other two definitely need a buff. Probably all three.

I like the idea of using the bottom card. I didn't think of that. I guess I have a hard time judging a card's strength without more playtesting. Hmm, maybe I could just make it cost $2.

FoundationCost 3 - Action - Reaction+1 card, +1 action.-This may take the place of any card costing up to $4 any time you trash or discard a card. When this card is discarded from your hand besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

I think this is too confusing to be worth doing. That's just my opinion.

I still think there must a way to word it better so it's not as confusing. I'll have to think about it more.

Marketting AgentCost 3 - Action - Duration+1 Card. Put one of your Agent tokens on a supply pile. Next turn: +$1. -While this is in play, any card with your agent token costs $1 more except during your buy phase when it costs $1 less. When this leaves play, remove one of your tokens. Setup: Each player has unique Agent tokens.

Terminal +1 Card just seems really bad. You can't use it for a draw engine since it doesn't increase your hand size, yet you still have the issue of maybe drawing stuff dead. I would get rid of it and just change the next-turn effect to +$2 or something.

I think the whole concept isn't worth having 4 to 6 sets of uniquely colored tokens and then calculating each card's cost based on all the tokens. "OK, I play Remodel and trash this Estate, which is worth $3 because one of my red tokens is on Estate. What can I gain? Well, there are blue and green tokens on Caravan. Whose tokens are these? Do you have a Marketting Agent in play? If not, these tokens don't count. Only one of you does, but you actually have two Marketting Agents in play, so your token counts double? Guess I can't gain a Caravan."

I don't think it'd be as confusing as you're thinking. When a marketting agent leaves play, that token is removed. If there are two of someone's marketting agents which apply to the same card, there'd be two of his tokens on that card. (The original version didn't even have tokens. It just said "name a card" Now that was too confusing...) I like your idea for above the line.

CollectablesCost 3 - Action - Duration+1 Action.Start of next turn: You may reveal a card from your hand costing up to $3. If you do, gain a copy of it. -While this is in play, all cards in your hand, deck, or discard pile cost $1 more.

The top half is incredibly weak, especially considering you can really only gain cards costing up to $2 (or less), because the card you reveal from your hand costs $1 more than it otherwise would. I predict that the bottom half will generate a lot of rules questions. If fact, I don't even think it does what you want it to do. When you Procession a Band of Misfits, you play it twice, trash it (now it's in the trash and worth $5 again), then gain an Action card costing $6. Likewise, if you trash an Estate with Collectables, it's in the trash by the time you gain a card, so it costs $2 again.

I guess I confused myself with the top half, I was thinking you could reveal a $4 card. oops. Maybe I'll say "You may reveal a card from your hand. If you do, gain a card costing less than it."Seems like the bottom half can easily be clarified in the card FAQ.

In general, I think an expansion should focus on some new mechanic, or at least on a mechanic that hasn't been the focus of an expansion before.

Personally, I think there's plenty of room for fan expansions that use preexisting mechanics in new ways.

mh, I think the reason this approach is frowned upon is that it tends to what people do when they create cards without putting that much effort into them. it's the most obvious way to go: pick some sort of event or choice, add a bunch of options involving curses and ruins, and also make a duration or overpay effect. however, that doesn't mean that it's inherently bad, in fact I do think that there are enough things left to do with the existing mechanics, and that it's possible to create an exciting expansion using old mechanics. so, i wouldn't say that a new expansion has to come up with new a new theme.

what I would say is that it will feel more like a cohesive whole if it does. there is, as far as i know, not a single card in any existing expansion that refers to a card or mechanic that's not in its expansion or in the base set. it would be totally reasonable for baron or scout to work on shelters, or for salvager to do stuff with potion cost cards, but they don't. it could be considered a waste of potential, but it does have practical reasons.

on to the cards

Quote

Quote

PotluckCost 3 - ActionReveal the card that is 3rd from the top of your deck. If it's an action card: play it and +1 action. If it's a treasure card, put it into your hand and +$1. Otherwise, discard it and +1 card.

"3rd from the top" is awkward. I suggest using the bottom card of your deck instead.

Like Iron Furnace, this is too weak. When a card is unreliable, the different options should each be powerful relative to its cost. But this is just a Village, [+1 Card; +$1], and [sift a card; +1 Card], respectively. Super weak! Maybe the Treasure option is fine, but the other two definitely need a buff. Probably all three.

i agree with LF here. this is super weak, and bottom card does seem more elegant. usually, a good way to estimate the powerlevel of a card is to compare it to as many different cards as possible. f.e, a very obvious thing to do in any extension is a terminal silver for $3/4 (LF has one(?) of those, too). Just list all terminal silvers that exist in dominion, these would be

and look how it holds up here. if it's stronger or weaker than all of them, it probably needs tweaking, because chancellor is pretty awful and swindler pretty op.

if your card is a terminal silver for $5, you can do the same with all terminal silvers for 5$, there are a bunch.

for this specific card, it's not quite as obvious, but it still works, you only have to think a little bit more. the best card to compare it to is ironmonger. both reveal one card, so let's compare the options.

action card: both are a village, but your card is better because you're guaranteed to make use of the +action. contradicting to what LF said, I think this is the one option that is alright.treasure card: your card is a peddler without +action, and ironmonger is either a peddler, or more common, a lab if it hits copper. huge difference.victory card: your card is a moat, ironmonger is a double lab. gigantic difference.useless non-victory card: your card is a moat, ironmonger is a lab

so, as you can see, the card utterly outclassed, and it's easily recognizable if you just pick the right card to compare it to. and, uh, don't make the mistake of thinking ironmonger is allowed to be stronger because it costs 4$ and your card is $3; 3$ and 4$ are almost identical. it's like 6$-----5$---------4$-3$----2$

Quote

VandalCost 5 - Action - Attack+2 cards. Each other player must discard an action card or reveal a hand without any actions. If a hand is revealed without any actions, that player gains a ruins. If any ruins are discarded +$2.

the cards to look at here are witch, cultist, ghost ship, and vault. witch and cultist because they both deal out junk, ghost ship because it attacks the current hand, vault because it's a variant of +2$ (and because all of them have +2 cards). it's not as obvious here as it is with the last card though. if it does deal out junk, it's worse than witch and cultist. if it doesn't, it might be worse or better than ghost ship. if it hits ruins, it's about as good as vault without the drawback of helping your opponent.

let's compare some scenarios in 2p

opponent doesn't have an action card: weaker witch/cultest. worth mabye 4,5$opponent does have a strong action card (f.e. another vandal): very strong attack, worth about $7opponent has a weak action card in hand like a single village: mediocre attack, maybe 4,5$opponent discards a ruins: about as good as vault, might hurt him a little bit too. worth about 5,5$

overall this looks pretty decent. it's unique too. the only problem would be the harshness of case #2, i.e. swinginess if you discard your opponents vandal. sea hag can do that too, but it's less likely, and it also sucks anyway.

Quote

Mine ScoutCost 4 - Action+$1. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put a revealed victory card, curse, or ruins into your hand. Put a revealed treasure into your hand. Discard one other revealed card. Put the rest back in any order.

okay, i'd mostly look at smithy here. you get the best treasure card out of 4. you get to discard one or two bad cards out of 4, and you get +1$. that isn't clearly better or worse on first glance, so let's take some samples

let's say the cards on your deck are silver, silver, estate, copper. smithy would net +4$ and leave a coper on top of your deck. mine scout would net +3$ and leave a silver on top of your deck.

let's say you have gold, copper, province, estate. smithy is +4$, leave curse on top of the deck. your card is identical

copper, copper, estate, copper: also identical...

mh, so if there are 3 treasure cards, and 2 of them among the first 3 cards, the difference between smithy and your card is 1$ minus the second best treasure card. if that card is a copper, it's identical to smithy, if it's silver or better, it's worse.

if there are 4 treasure cards, you also have to substract the third best treasure card. your card will be better if there are action cards though, because you can put the best ones back, while smithy will just draw them dead. if you reveal a dead card, two action cards and a treasure, you will net +1$ +$ from the treasure, discard the bad action, put the better one on top. smithy will have a random card on top and just +$ from the treasure.

so, in conclusion, your card is slightly worse than smithy in BM strategies but better in slogs. oh, and naturally it's terrible in engines because it can't draw action cards.yea, hm, dunno what to make of that. but I do hope i gave you some ideas for future evaluation.

I agree with LF on marketting agent. I don't think there is any single card that can justify different tokens.

Quote

Royal AuthorityCost 6 - ActionIf you have no actions in hand, reveal your hand, then reveal deck cards until you reveal an action, put the action in your hand and discard the rest. Choose an action card in your hand. You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times.

(you need to tweak the wording so players can't dig for actions even if they have action cards in their hand.)

this is reallly swingy. dig for an action card, play it twice, that's about as good as a golem, a card which is worth at least $7. dig for an action card, play it three times, that's insane. so, if you play something like sheme/R.A, each r.a. is a guaranteed +3 cards, +3 actions, and you can always top deck all of them. it's so good that you probably never want to buy any terminals, so that you can always dig for stuff. also, I don't see any reason for the "isn't an attack" part.

a more reasonable version would look like this:

Choose one: dig for an action card; or choose an action card from your hand, if it's worth 4$ or more, play it two times, otherwise, play it three times.

Quote

Cost 3 - Action - Reaction+2 cards. Set aside a card from your hand. Put it into your hand next turn.-When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, the other player sets aside the attack card after it resolves and discards it after his next shuffle.

the top part is heaven effect on moat instead of on a cantrip. since terminal draw is exactly what makes a heaven effect good, it's reasonably strong on its own. it's kinda similar to courtyard, but it seems to be better.

the reaction part is interesting on first glance. your opponent plays a taxman, you put him in jail, but you have to pay the taxes anyway. it's definitely a funny theme. i'm... not sure if this hurts enough to ever make people not want to play attack cards, but i can absolutely see situations where the reaction can be huge. say your opponent plays a rabble/village engine. with just one prison, you can put all of his rabbles in jail, and he has to grind through his entire deck without them, causing him to have maybe 3 or even 4 dead turns. since +3 card + attack is not a rarity, I don't know if there is any way for you to balance the reaction. you could make it work just once, but then it becomes political. you could make the prison just hold one spot for each player, so that if he plays another attack card, his old one is discarded. that might work.

so, uh, I have listened to an entire album while writing this. I'll take a break, maybe I'll comment on some of the other cards later.

You can definitely create interesting cards using ideas from official expansions in new ways, but I think that it's not necessarily a good idea to design a whole expansion without a theme  if you have a bunch of cards that aren't really connected in any way, the cards can be very good and interesting, but why call that an expansion?

The official cards are mostly published as expansions, because it's a product that has to make profit and making expansions is more profitable than selling single cards. As a fan card designer, you don't have that restriction, so you can make single cards, or experiment with different formats, and you can choose the most suitable option for each "release". Generally, if you don't have a particular reason to group cards together, you probably shouldn't.

Some reasons to make an expansion that come to mind: - Simplicity: It's easier to learn that Alchemy cards have potion costs than learning that a single card has a potion cost ten times. - Synergy: Potion cost cards are stronger when more of them are in the kingdom. For full-random players, the expansions don't matter, but some players pick their kingdoms based on the expansions and it matters for them. - Common additional cards/mats/other parts: It's efficient to put all of the Potion cards in the same expansion so you don't have to print Potions twice. This is less important for fan cards, but it's still more convenient than "This is my new card and you also need these and these that I posted here six months ago". - Flavor: Alchemy has cards that... uh... are somewhat related to alchemy? What is a Familiar doing there ? Anyway, let's say you design 25 horror themed cards. You can do lots of cool thematic tricks when the cards are connected to each other: trash the Undead cards with the Silver Bullet Dipped In Blessed Garlic Oil card or something.

I like the approach of designing individual cards until you have a reason to group some of them together, then designing more cards specifically for that expansion/whatever it is if it feels right.

You can definitely create interesting cards using ideas from official expansions in new ways, but I think that it's not necessarily a good idea to design a whole expansion without a theme  if you have a bunch of cards that aren't really connected in any way, the cards can be very good and interesting, but why call that an expansion?

Um, there are themes, in mechanics and flavor in my expansion which I even pointed out in the OP.

I like the approach of designing individual cards until you have a reason to group some of them together, then designing more cards specifically for that expansion/whatever it is if it feels right.

This is exactly what I did.

PS: How does the familiar not fit in alchemy? The theme of the set is alchemy and magic. University is the card that doesn't fit to me (unless it's referring to Unseen University, a school for wizards).

I guess I'm not surprised that it seems weak, but a $2 cost that lets people play an action twice seems too strong even though the card is being trashed. I agree with the other changes.

Throne Room only costs $4 and it doesn't trash the Action it plays. Trashing the Action is an enormous penalty. If you really think playing another Action twice and then trashing it is too powerful an effect for $2, I don't know what to tell you. I wouldn't buy that card for $0 if that's all it did.

I don't think it'd be as confusing as you're thinking. When a marketting agent leaves play, that token is removed. If there are two of someone's marketting agents which apply to the same card, there'd be two of his tokens on that card. (The original version didn't even have tokens. It just said "name a card" Now that was too confusing...) I like your idea for above the line.

By the wording of your card, if I have three tokens on three different cards, each of those cards costs $3 more. Also, if you play a Marketting Agent with Throne Room or King's Court, you place multiple tokens, but you only remove one when you discard the Marketting Agent. In this way you can accumulate unlimited tokens over the course of the game.

...but a $2 cost that lets people play an action twice seems too strong even though the card is being trashed. I agree with the other changes.

Throne Room only costs $4 and it doesn't trash the Action it plays. Trashing the Action is an enormous penalty. If you really think playing another Action twice and then trashing it is too powerful an effect for $2, I don't know what to tell you. I wouldn't buy that card for $0 if that's all it did.

I don't think it'd be as confusing as you're thinking. When a marketting agent leaves play, that token is removed. If there are two of someone's marketting agents which apply to the same card, there'd be two of his tokens on that card. (The original version didn't even have tokens. It just said "name a card" Now that was too confusing...) I like your idea for above the line.

By the wording of your card, if I have three tokens on three different cards, each of those cards costs $3 more. Also, if you play a Marketting Agent with Throne Room or King's Court, you place multiple tokens, but you only remove one when you discard the Marketting Agent. In this way you can accumulate unlimited tokens over the course of the game.

Also, "marketting" doesn't have two 'T's. It's spelled "marketing".

oh. oops. Still, it's not hard to fix these things:

Quote

Marketing AgentCost 3 - Action - DurationPut one of your Agent tokens on a supply pile. Next turn: +$2. -While a marketing agent is in play, your agent token(s) cause cards from that pile to cost $1 more except during your buy phase when they cost $1 less. When this leaves play, remove any token(s) you placed with this Marketing Agent. Setup: Each player has unique Agent tokens.

TrailblazerCost 4 - Action+1 card, +1 action. May play this card when you have no actions. If you do, discard a card (before drawing).-When you gain this, reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put any number of revealed Victory cards and Curses into your hand. Put the other cards back in any order.

I had a similar on-gain effect on a Victory card once.

The "[You] may play this card when you have no Actions" effect should be separated from the on-play effect by a line. "You may play this" is not something that happens as a result of playing the card, so it doesn't belong above the line. I don't love the concept in general, but if you use it, you should probably reword it. Something like, "During your Action phase, if you have no Actions remaining, you may discard a card to play this." Then specify in the FAQ that you can't do this in the middle of resolving another card, etc.

So the whole concept of the card is that it has 4 different colors? Eaugh.

If you keep the Reaction, it should read, "When you discard this on another player's turn, you may set it aside. If you do, then at the start of your next turn, +$2 and discard this."

Quote

Joint UpgradeCost 4 - Action+1 Card. Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more. Each other player may trash a card from their hand. If they do, they gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the card they trashed.

I think this is very weak. +1 Card is probably a decent boost for Remodel, but the bonus for other players is much better, seeing as they didn't have to buy or play the card.

Quote

Generous BenefactorCost 4 - Action - Duration+1 action, +$1. Next turn: +$2, +1 Buy. -While this is in play, each other player gets +$1 on their turn.

So it's a Copper this turn and a Grand Market next turn. But it's a Treasury for each other player. Too weak, I think.

Quote

PedestalCost 4 - Victory - TreasureWorth $1. Worth 1 VP. When you play this, reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a victory card. Put it in your hand or on top of your deck. You may put one other revealed card on top of your deck. Discard the rest.

Could be good. I'm not sure why it's a Treasure rather than a terminal Action that makes $2 or something. I think it'd be more appealing that way. Also, for simplicity's sake, I'd say the Victory card should always go into your hand. The situations in which you'd want to topdeck it are too rare to be worth the extra text and added complexity.

Quote

AuditorCost 4 - Action - Attack+1 Card. You may discard any number of cards. +1 card per card discarded. Each other player discards the second card from their deck, then looks through their discard pile and topdecks a ruins or a card that is not an action or treasure. If they didn't topdeck a card, they gain a ruins.

I think "Ruins or a card that is not an Action or Treasure" is too complex to be worth it. How about just a Ruins? Also, the other players should reveal their discard piles, or there's no accountability about whether there was a suitable card there.

Quote

GamblerCost 4 - Action - AttackEach other player reveals their top two cards and discards a revealed action or treasure costing at least $3. If the total cost of the first two revealed cards is... ...10 or more: +$4, 8-9: +$3, 5-7: +$2, 2-4: +$1, less than 2: discard a card.

"First two revealed cards" would be, under most circumstances, the two cards that the player to your left reveals? It's not easy to parse. It's a cute concept, but I think it's pretty inelegant. It needs a table with 5 rows, which there may not be room for on a card with that other text.

Quote

Restored VillageCost 4 - Action+2 Actions. You may discard a card. Draw up to 5 cards in hand. You may discard a treasure. If you did, put this on top of your deck at the start of your clean-up phase.

How about a consolidated version?

Quote

Restored VillageCost 4 - Action+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand. If the discarded card was a Silver, put this on top of your deck at the start of Clean-up.

Quote

MetalworkersCost 5 - Action+3 Cards, +1 Buy. Discard or trash a treasure card. If the card you trash or discard is a gold, +1 Action.

Shrewd DealerCost 5 - Action+1 Buy. Reveal the top three cards of your deck. Put all revealed treasure cards in your hand. You may discard one other revealed card. Put the rest back in any order.

I worry that this makes you want Treasures a bit too much.

Quote

Mine ScoutCost 4 - Action+$1. Reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put a revealed victory card, curse, or ruins into your hand. Put a revealed treasure into your hand. Discard one other revealed card. Put the rest back in any order.

VandalCost 5 - Action - Attack+2 cards. Each other player must discard an action card or reveal a hand without any actions. If a hand is revealed without any actions, that player gains a ruins. If any ruins are discarded +$2.

A lot of moving parts. It penalizes players for buying Action cards, which is a bad idea in general. I get that the Ruins junking and penalty for discarding Ruins is supposed to fix that, but I don't think it does. I'd rather discard Ruins than good Actions. Also, the "if any Ruins are discarded" makes the card a bit political with more than 2 players.

Quote

PatricianCost 5 - Action - Attack+2 Actions. Each player (including you) reveals cards from their deck until they reveal an action or treasure card costing at least $3. Put yours in your hand and discard the rest; each other player discards theirs and put the other revealed cards on the bottom of their deck. If you've already played at least two Patricians this round, this card does not affect other players.

I don't think I have a great fix for this. I think the card is too harsh in general, especially with how easily spammable it is with terminal draw available. The bottom-decking means less shuffling, but potentially much more AP.

Quote

Kingdom RestorationCost 5 - Action+1 Action. Choose one: Discard two cards from your deck. Then look through your discard pile and put up to two cards from it on top of your deck, OR Look through the trash pile and return up to two cards to the supply. Either way, +1 Card.

Cool idea. I'd get rid of the returning cards to the Supply bit. The card is interesting and useful enough without that extra, unrelated ability. You may also want to clarify that it's the top 2 cards of your deck that are discarded, but that's not essential.

Quote

Royal AuthorityCost 6 - ActionIf you have no actions in hand, reveal your hand, then reveal deck cards until you reveal an action, put the action in your hand and discard the rest. Choose an action card in your hand. You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times.

Ugh, clunky. I think as much as possible, cards should strive for elegance, and this is the opposite of that. I've criticized other cards of yours for this already, but "You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times" is ridiculously over-complex and difficult to remember. I also don't like the part where you dig for an Action card if you don't have one. I think it should either always dig for an Action or never dig for one, regardless of what's in your hand.

TrailblazerCost 4 - Action+1 card, +1 action. May play this card when you have no actions. If you do, discard a card (before drawing).-When you gain this, reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Put any number of revealed Victory cards and Curses into your hand. Put the other cards back in any order.

The "[You] may play this card when you have no Actions" effect should be separated from the on-play effect by a line. "You may play this" is not something that happens as a result of playing the card, so it doesn't belong above the line. I don't love the concept in general, but if you use it, you should probably reword it. Something like, "During your Action phase, if you have no Actions remaining, you may discard a card to play this." Then specify in the FAQ that you can't do this in the middle of resolving another card, etc.

I always thought Dominion should have some special card that lets you play another action after you've used up all your actions for the turn. This is meant to be that card.I think you're right about the line & rewording.

Joint UpgradeCost 4 - Action+1 Card. Trash a card from your hand and gain a card costing up to $2 more. Each other player may trash a card from their hand. If they do, they gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the card they trashed.

I think this is very weak. +1 Card is probably a decent boost for Remodel, but the bonus for other players is much better, seeing as they didn't have to buy or play the card.

I wondered about this. Would it help if I say "Each other player may trash a card costing at least $2 from their hand. If they do, they gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the card they trashed." ?

AuditorCost 4 - Action - Attack+1 Card. You may discard any number of cards. +1 card per card discarded. Each other player discards the second card from their deck, then looks through their discard pile and topdecks a ruins or a card that is not an action or treasure. If they didn't topdeck a card, they gain a ruins.

I think "Ruins or a card that is not an Action or Treasure" is too complex to be worth it. How about just a Ruins?

I disagree. I want this card to be a mucker more often than a junker, including the first time it's played in a game.

GamblerCost 4 - Action - AttackEach other player reveals their top two cards and discards a revealed action or treasure costing at least $3. If the total cost of the first two revealed cards is... ...10 or more: +$4, 8-9: +$3, 5-7: +$2, 2-4: +$1, less than 2: discard a card.

"First two revealed cards" would be, under most circumstances, the two cards that the player to your left reveals? It's not easy to parse. It's a cute concept, but I think it's pretty inelegant. It needs a table with 5 rows, which there may not be room for on a card with that other text.

I got it to fit in the card-size and printed it to use. It isn't in neat rows though. And yes, it means the two cards revealed by the player to your left. ...But this makes me wonder about its interactions with reaction cards. I'll have to give that some thought.Elegance is good, but not as high priority for me as it is for some others here. to each his own.

Kingdom RestorationCost 5 - Action+1 Action. Choose one: Discard two cards from your deck. Then look through your discard pile and put up to two cards from it on top of your deck, OR Look through the trash pile and return up to two cards to the supply. Either way, +1 Card.

Cool idea. I'd get rid of the returning cards to the Supply bit. The card is interesting and useful enough without that extra, unrelated ability. You may also want to clarify that it's the top 2 cards of your deck that are discarded, but that's not essential.

The ability to return cards to the supply is part of the card concept. Each option applies the 'kingdom restoration' in a different way, but I think both fit the flavor so I don't think it's unrelated.

Royal AuthorityCost 6 - ActionIf you have no actions in hand, reveal your hand, then reveal deck cards until you reveal an action, put the action in your hand and discard the rest. Choose an action card in your hand. You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times.

Ugh, clunky. I think as much as possible, cards should strive for elegance, and this is the opposite of that. I've criticized other cards of yours for this already, but "You may play it once, twice, or if it costs less than $4 and isn't an attack, you may play it three times" is ridiculously over-complex and difficult to remember. I also don't like the part where you dig for an Action card if you don't have one. I think it should either always dig for an Action or never dig for one, regardless of what's in your hand.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this one. I wanted to make a version of king's court that I'd like, but I don't really like how this turned out. I'll probably do something like what silverspawn suggested, or I might just give up on this idea.

Restored VillageCost 4 - Action+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand. If the discarded card was a Silver, put this on top of your deck at the start of Clean-up.

this is way too strong though

Could you elaborate?

well, remember the village i once proposed that is also a lab if you have exactly 5 cards in your hand? that turned out to be too strong. this one is a lab if you have 4 cards in your hand, which isn't much harder to do because you can just play a terminal, and it isn't even limited to +2 cards. it's a complete defense against ghost ship, militia, goons, urchin, a really easy combo with discard-for-$, a super strong card im small decks with terminal $, a noticable combo with other sifting, and even if you aren't doing any of that, it's still really strong. imagine a card that has +2 cards, +2 actions, discard a card. that's probably too strong at 4$, and it's just a part of restored village. and it can topdeck itself.

yea, sometimes it doesn't draw, but that's just such a small drawback. also compare it to shanty town.

there is that:

which is a card WW designed for one of the contest thingies, and there's this thread discussing it, which seems to come to the conclusion that it's a fairly strong, but not op village for 4$. so, the same thing with huge buffs on top is almost certainly not balanced

generally, I also really don't like draw-to-x on a village. it's too easy, it will just kill discard attacks. just like discard-for-$, all official cards which do it (JOAT -> 5, Watchtower -> 6, Library -> 7) are terminals

Restored VillageCost 4 - Action+2 Actions. Discard a card, then draw up to 5 cards in hand. If the discarded card was a Silver, put this on top of your deck at the start of Clean-up.

this is way too strong though

I did wonder if it (and the original version) might be too strong. I guess there's no need for it to topdeck itself. I mainly had the topdecking to make up for the fact that it doesn't always draw, but the bit of sifting is good enough. I think I'll just do this:

Royal HeirloomCost 6 - Action - DurationReveal deck cards until you reveal an action card, put the action card in your hand and discard the rest. Then choose an action card from your hand. Play it now and play it again at the start of your next turn.

Test rating 1/6.This one is to replace Royal Authority. I'm sure someone else has thought of something very similar to this. Has anyone tested a card like this? (duration to play an action this turn and next turn)

CapitolCost 5 - Action+2 Cards, +2 Actions. Each other player may draw a card. If they do, they discard a card.

Cool idea. Seems like it could work at that price point. I strongly suggest making the bonus for each other player mandatory. It's never going to hurt their current hand, and if it triggers a shuffle they didn't want, boo hoo cry me a river.

Quote

FoundationCost 3 - Action - Reaction+1 Action. +$1. Look at your top deck card. Discard it or put it back.-*This card costs $4 when it is not in the supply. When this card is discarded besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

Oof, this card is too busy. The under-line text requires three different types of timing, so there really should be 3 dividing lines, which would be awful. How does the discard reaction work with Militia? The player discards Foundation, then draws a card so he no longer has 3 cards in hand, so he probably has to discard again. It's confusing. Anyway, I can't really identify a single compelling concept for the card. It just looks like Ironmonger, Peddler, Tunnel, and Feodum cobbled together. Is there something I'm missing?

FoundationCost 3 - Action - Reaction+1 Action. +$1. Look at your top deck card. Discard it or put it back.-*This card costs $4 when it is not in the supply. When this card is discarded besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

Oof, this card is too busy. The under-line text requires three different types of timing, so there really should be 3 dividing lines, which would be awful. How does the discard reaction work with Militia? The player discards Foundation, then draws a card so he no longer has 3 cards in hand, so he probably has to discard again. It's confusing. Anyway, I can't really identify a single compelling concept for the card. It just looks like Ironmonger, Peddler, Tunnel, and Feodum cobbled together. Is there something I'm missing?

The old version was this:

Quote

FoundationCost 3 - Action - Reaction+1 card, +1 action.-This may take the place of any card costing up to $4 any time you trash or discard a card. When this card is discarded from your hand besides during a clean-up phase, +1 card. When this card is trashed, gain a silver.

The concept was a card that could be anything for the purposes of trashing & discarding to other cards. It can be remodelled as if it cost $4 (gaining a silver on the side). It can be discarded without losing a card. (In case of Militia, discard this card and one other, then draw one for this card's reaction. That seems like common sense to me.) The original version could be discarded by a baron for $4 because an estate costs less than $4. That was too confusing. I thought the new version was much simpler. I added the 'Look at your top deck card. Discard it or put it back,' so that it wouldn't be just a copper on boards with no trashing or sifting. I think it's cool that the new version acts like a peddler if you play it with another foundation on top of your deck.